I would ask you to look at games with adjacent fort vs. unlimited fort. Which style requires more strategy and planning? I sat adjacent, and I would bet most people agree....and adjacent fort clearly has much fewer choices than unlimited.

kcoenich wrote:how often does a change for a 1000 troops happen?? or a 100? I dont know... I'm sure its pretty rare...

no, almost every bloody game if you play feudal 5 or 6 man in the fog. as for this making the game more strategy than luck, you are a fool. you have to take the cards into account in your strategy, a fact you clearly haven't picked up on yet if you think that coming back from one ter is an undeserved win.

I am voting Republican now. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth -Monica Lewinski

kcoenich wrote:Well... the way I see it is that 20 vs 20 (or max number vs max number) is much more exciting than say 54 vs 19... plus it would be an option, not an absolute rule...

Plus, Strategy is the best part of the game, so the more strategy you put on the game, the better it gets... believe me, you feel a looot better when you win a 20 vs 20 battle than winning a battle of 65 vs 30, that outcome is absolutely obvious.

the object of the game is to have prepared to have that 65 vs 30 advantage, it don't happen by accident, it's just another ploy to have the player who is taking a whipping to prolong a game and extend the game with the inevitable outcome of taking your ass whipping.

I MAY BE IN THE WRONG WITH THIS SUGGESTION BUT WHAT IF WE MADE IT SO THAT AFTER THE ROUND IS OVER ALL TERRITS. WITH TROOP NUMBERS OVER 20 (OR WHATEVER THE MAX NUMBER IS SET TO) ARE REDUCED TO 20. IF YOU CASH IN OR HAVE A TROOP DEPLOYMENT NUMBER OVER 20 YOU CAN STILL DEPLOY THEM... IT'S JUST THAT WHEN THE ROUND ENDS IF YOU HAVE NOT SPREAD THEM OUT YOU SCREWED YOURSELF OVER.

ANYWHOO.... I LOVE THIS OPTION.... WILL PLAY THIS IF WE SAY YES TO IT.

This has been suggested before but I don't remember the exact reason atm.

Personally I wouldn't use this option as it restricts a valid (albeit boring) strategy of hoarding troops for a well timed push. Also it detracts from being able to use the bonuses you collect (and the attackers advantage) fully on some maps and on some maps it would just not work at all (due to them being built for big number armies).

But by all means discuss it (have a search in the old suggs if you like). You might get more support now or be able to use it as inspiration for new maps or something.

Most of the more interesting games I've been in feature stacks way above twelve. Is there much fun to be had in breaking a front line of 12 only to find that everywhere else has 12 armies on it? I'm not convinced. If you can only have 12 at the start of the attack even with cards, this will just promote stalemates.

I see a lot of people - I'm one of them - find games in which players just stack round after round uninteresting. Here is a simple idea to stop unlimited stacking.

My inspiration for this is the board game.In then board game there are a limited number of armies in the box, the same amount of each colour. When there are no armies of your colour left you get no reinforcements until you lose some men.

I can think of a couple of ways this could be used as a new game type.

1)The army limit is a multiple of the number of territories on the map

2)The army limit is a set amount

For (1) maybe the person setting up the game could choose the multiple from an allowed range

For (2) there could be a number of options for whoever sets up the game eg, 200, 500, 1000 or maybe just choose a number between an upper and lower limit.

This is a straightforward way to set an upper limit on a players armies. It would also lead to a situation where all players became increasingly nervous as someone neared the limit and had to attack.

I realise the situation is different in fog where you don't know how many troops your opponents have. Which could make you even more nervous, because somebody, soon, will have to attack. But you could get a rough idea from their reinforcements and how many attacks they are making. Though I can imagine being a player in a no spoils fog game, approaching the army limit and realising that if you don't do something two things will happen. First everyone will see your reinforcements drop and if you have lost no territories, or bonuses, will know how many troops you have. Second, everyone else will start to narrow the gap on your troop count.

So fog or not, I think this will promote a more attacking style of gameplay and lead to some new stategic considerations

Although your suggestion is a nice idea, I am doubtfull about it; Game 1000001, I understand this game is unique. but it points out that games like those are "threated badly" by this option. In other words, how would you make difference between a player that has a balance between attacking/defending and a "stacking" player?

Although your suggestion is a nice idea, I am doubtfull about it; Game 1000001, I understand this game is unique. but it points out that games like those are "threated badly" by this option. In other words, how would you make difference between a player that has a balance between attacking/defending and a "stacking" player?

sniff

In replyIf a player just stacks at some point they will reach the upper limit of armies, and they could just sit taking zero reinfocements hoping the other players will kill each other off. If this doesn't happen an active player will gain more territories and the reinfocements to replace losses and their position will improve while the stacking players won't. at some point the player stacking will have to make a move or lose.and while "move or lose" may eventually be the case in a game with unlimited stacking. With total troop limits the point is reached sooner and players who stay out of any fight hoping to mop up are going to have fewer troops, than in an unlimited game, to try this.I am in a number of games that are down to 3 players and an attack that significantly weakens 1 player, probably hands the game to the 3rd player. I think that with limited troop numbers attacking becomes more likley because the player not attacked has less chance to sweep the board.

I still think this is a nice idea but I'm doubtfull it will ever happen. Every players has the right to play his own game/strategy as long as it is within the rules of CC. A player that only stacks has all the right to do so, wheter another player likes it or not.

I have seen quite a few limit stacks proposals. upkeep ect ect..this one is simple, however small maps don't really suffer from stacking, large maps have so many troops on them, it is hardly worth it at all...I do like the simplicity, might see it come true, but at the moment the idea is not ready yet to be implemented

You can't limit stacking... Stacking is crucial in any portion of the game - besides, what occurs when the cashes grow to 60 or seventy men? Unless you're talking of preventing stack of over 200, then it's a ludicrous concept.

I like this idea. It has to be an option at game set up not a general rule, so that if people like "infinite stack" they won't start or join an "army limit" game, just as you can avoid foggy or nuclear by simply not playing them.

And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.